I was just commenting in another thread that "free market" is distinct from "black market" and "anarchy." Here we have a similar problem. It's not feasible to impose health and safety regulations on an underground economy.

ZAZ:I was just commenting in another thread that "free market" is distinct from "black market" and "anarchy." Here we have a similar problem. It's not feasible to impose health and safety regulations on an underground economy.

Yeah, if I've got an illegal pot farm, I'm probably not inclined to let Dept. of Agriculture inspectors come have a look-see. Just guessing.

The problem comes in when you can no longer differentiate legitimate research regarding short and long-term side effects of pot use in it's various forms, with FUD used by the DARE and DFA to scare people.

kmmontandon:MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though

I've been reassured by Republicans that clear-cutting just simulates a natural process, and is good for the forest.

I never hear any specifics to explain how the hell that's supposed to be true, of course.

Forest fires are supposed to naturally clear out the forest periodically and reset the ecosystem so that new growth gets a chance to get started. By putting out forest fires, we humans have actually farked up that natural cycle of destruction and renewal, so clear cutting actually returns things to the status quo if it is done responsibly, which of course is a huge if.

This article isn't necessarily wrong, as I can't speak for the past or present of California, but it's not like folks growing in the forests is anything new. The Mexican cartels have long been infamous for using the parks and forests for their grows, and guerilla growing was the norm rather than the exception for many, many years. Humboldt and the triangle aren't historically famous for indoor farms. Up until the MMJ laws passed in Oregon, the forests were FULL of weed growers, and the MMJ laws did the exact opposite of what this article implies, as the large outdoor grows became several small outdoor grows. Most of the large-scale production I hear about in California and Colorado now is taking place in legal warehouses, because anybody who actually knows what they're doing wants as much control/security over the process as possible , and they want their grow to adhere to legal standards. I don't doubt that illegal, squatting outdoor farmers aren't the most conscientious folks in the world, and I imagine the dispensary scene in CA has increased demand somewhat, or at least made it easier for the average dipshiat to sell a boat-load of weed, but I'd also actually be surprised to learn that outdoor cultivation has increased over the years.

Hell, we've known about this problem for years. Why the LA Times is running yet another article on it is beyond me. Must not have been any particularly interesting shootings or stabbings or gang turf wars lately.

sammyk:I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.

So much this. I used to live in SoCal, now in NorCal, and I know plenty of stoners. We are the land of fruits and nuts, but also the land of surfers and pot smokers. It irritates the more financially blessed or stable stoners to no end when those uppity poors go to work the harvest. Why wouldn't they work the harvest? They can make more money in less than one month than they did the previous three or four by working the harvest. Oh, and hey! Smoke every night, free! They consider the poors part of a major problem with our ecosystem. "Well, then so are you, because you're buying it." They don't like me pointing that out and it usually ends with them having a snit fit about the government.

/not a stoner//also not a surfer///you'd have to check with my sis for that stuff

Real Women Drink Akvavit:Hell, we've known about this problem for years. Why the LA Times is running yet another article on it is beyond me. Must not have been any particularly interesting shootings or stabbings or gang turf wars lately.

sammyk: I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.

So much this. I used to live in SoCal, now in NorCal, and I know plenty of stoners. We are the land of fruits and nuts, but also the land of surfers and pot smokers. It irritates the more financially blessed or stable stoners to no end when those uppity poors go to work the harvest. Why wouldn't they work the harvest? They can make more money in less than one month than they did the previous three or four by working the harvest. Oh, and hey! Smoke every night, free! They consider the poors part of a major problem with our ecosystem. "Well, then so are you, because you're buying it." They don't like me pointing that out and it usually ends with them having a snit fit about the government.

/not a stoner//also not a surfer///you'd have to check with my sis for that stuff

see the issue here isnt the fact that people are growing marijuana its the lengths they have to go to grow it, if it was legal we wouldnt be having this problem people would have warehouses and greenhouses outdoor growing would become pretty well obselete

Just another reason to legalize. The CA initiative to legalize a few years ago was thwarted thanks in part to the fear-mongering spread by the growers in the Emerald Triangle. These guys have absolutely no desire to see legalization because of how much money is pumped into their homes. These are the same people who aren't regulated, have no safety standards, are likely to be violent to protect their crop, and have absolutely no incentive to give a shiat about their environmental impact.

Mutt Farkinov:Real Women Drink Akvavit: Hell, we've known about this problem for years. Why the LA Times is running yet another article on it is beyond me. Must not have been any particularly interesting shootings or stabbings or gang turf wars lately.

sammyk: I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.

So much this. I used to live in SoCal, now in NorCal, and I know plenty of stoners. We are the land of fruits and nuts, but also the land of surfers and pot smokers. It irritates the more financially blessed or stable stoners to no end when those uppity poors go to work the harvest. Why wouldn't they work the harvest? They can make more money in less than one month than they did the previous three or four by working the harvest. Oh, and hey! Smoke every night, free! They consider the poors part of a major problem with our ecosystem. "Well, then so are you, because you're buying it." They don't like me pointing that out and it usually ends with them having a snit fit about the government.

/not a stoner//also not a surfer///you'd have to check with my sis for that stuff

Link?

Sorry, dude. She's computer illiterate. I'm just now teaching her how to use my laptop so I have an excuse to buy a new one, and it is going poorly. I think she should stick to surfing.

Antagonism:Just another reason to legalize. The CA initiative to legalize a few years ago was thwarted thanks in part to the fear-mongering spread by the growers in the Emerald Triangle. These guys have absolutely no desire to see legalization because of how much money is pumped into their homes. These are the same people who aren't regulated, have no safety standards, are likely to be violent to protect their crop, and have absolutely no incentive to give a shiat about their environmental impact.

So...legalization is good because growers could be legitimate, non-criminals no longer at constant risk of being busted...

OR

Nonlegalization is good because I make good money and Walmart brand "Great Value" weed will put me out of business.

guises:Gyrfalcon: jflan17: This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.

This.

Farming is really bad for the environment. I don't care how nifty and organic your plants are.

This is a harmful over-generalization, farming does not have to be unsustainable. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade-grown_coffee

[shrug] Farming is bad for the environment. Period. It doesn't matter how "sustainable" it is. Planting one crop, that is, putting more of one type of plant in an area to the exclusion of other plants that would normally be in the area is environmentally unsound. It's possible to MINIMIZE the damage, to MINIMIZE the harm done by fertilizing, irrigating, etc., but the simple fact is that settling down in one area and emphasizing one or two sorts of crop and removing other types of plants ("weeds"), allowing certain animals and disallowing other animals ("pests" or "vermin") is ecologically unsound.

It can be done in such a way as to keep the impact smaller; but it's going to have an impact. Sorry if you don't like the implications, but your shade-grown coffee still means that there are too many coffee plants in the region which don't belong there. And are those coffee plants even native to the region?

Mutt Farkinov:Antagonism: Just another reason to legalize. The CA initiative to legalize a few years ago was thwarted thanks in part to the fear-mongering spread by the growers in the Emerald Triangle. These guys have absolutely no desire to see legalization because of how much money is pumped into their homes. These are the same people who aren't regulated, have no safety standards, are likely to be violent to protect their crop, and have absolutely no incentive to give a shiat about their environmental impact.

So...legalization is good because growers could be legitimate, non-criminals no longer at constant risk of being busted...

OR

Nonlegalization is good because I make good money and Walmart brand "Great Value" weed will put me out of business.

The growers I know (up in Mendocino) aren't actually concerned with being busted, but they are afraid of being robbed. They own weapons and will shoot to kill to protect their crops. I'm speaking about CA, YMMV in different states. But, yes, they do hate the idea of Great Value weed. That is one of the (many) arguments that they spread during the '10 campaigns to try to sway opinion against prop 19, that weed would be ruined because big companies would take it over and turn it into Phillip Morris.

Sucks for them, but I'd rather have a sane, legal situation, tax them, and regulate them so they don't do the kind of shiat that is mentioned in the article. And yes, it would reduce the number of criminals we have in society by a large amount the day it goes legal.